[Kalvan14]

Scoring: MP

1S - (P) - 2C - (P)
??

---

System is SAYC. Make a bid.

Now change slightly the hand, moving a small card from Clubs to Diamonds. Is it a different bid?

[temp3600]

I would bid 3NT at Matchpoints with both hands. (at IMPs, 4C with the one displayed and 3NT with the second one)

[pbleighton]

An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner.

If the hand was 5233, it's tougher, and depends on what 3NT means (it has no defined meaning in SAYC). I think that the best meaning of 3NT is 18-19 balanced. If you don't have this agreement, then 3C is probably best, but see above.

Editorial: SAYC has its flaws, but in practice they are considerably magnified by the fact that most people who play it don't understand it.

Peter

[awm]

Well, Elianna and I play more or less SAYC, and for us this is an easy 3♣ call (natural and GF). Move one card and I'd bid 2NT (natural and GF). Both these calls should be forcing as responder promises a rebid.

Of course, most people who play standard american (and many who claim to play sayc) do not consider those rebids forcing. In that case I'd have to bid 4♣ and 3nt respectively, which seems like pretty awful methods to me.

[ArcLight]

>An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner

What are forcing bids under SAYC? (I'm never sure.)

[pbleighton]

"What are forcing bids under SAYC? (I'm never sure.)"

Every rebid short of game is forcing. The rebids are not defined, however.

Peter

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Nov 19 2005, 07:32 PM, said:

>An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner

What are forcing bids under SAYC?  (I'm never sure.)

Lord only knows...

Playing traditional SAYC, the 3♣ raise probably isn't forcing...
The 2♣ response does not promise enough strength to force to game
The raise to 3♣ promises a minimum opening...
Ergo, the 3♣ raise shouldn't establish a game force

In practice, very few SAYC players have actually bothered to learn the system and prefer to project their own prejudices regarding what is right and proper onto this pathetic excuse for a bidding system...

For example, lets looking onto the 2♣ response in a bit more detail:
In theory, the 2♣ response promises a rebid...
Accordingly, after the 3♣, responder is forced to either introduce a new suit at the three level, bid 3N, or raise to 4♣. In short, you're only way to stop short of game is bidding 4♣...

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Nov 19 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

ArcLight, on Nov 19 2005, 07:32 PM, said:

>An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner

What are forcing bids under SAYC?  (I'm never sure.)

Lord only knows...

Playing traditional SAYC, the 3♣ raise probably isn't forcing...
The 2♣ response does not promise enough strength to force to game
The raise to 3♣ promises a minimum opening...
Ergo, the 3♣ raise shouldn't establish a game force

In practice, very few SAYC players have actually bothered to learn the system and prefer to project their own prejudices regarding what is right and proper onto this pathetic excuse for a bidding system...

For example, lets looking onto the 2♣ response in a bit more detail:
In theory, the 2♣ response promises a rebid...
Accordingly, after the 3♣, responder is forced to either introduce a new suit at the three level, bid 3N, or raise to 4♣. In short, you're only way to stop short of game is bidding 4♣...

But 3♣ does not show a minimum for the simple reason that the 2♣ bid promises a rebid. With a minimum hand you must rebid 2♠ (or introduce ♥ or ♦ where applicable) and then show support on the next round.

Similarly a 2NT rebid does not show a minimum.

Whether you like this treatment or not, it is very useful on this hand - you can simply raise to 3♣.

Eric

[pbleighton]

From the SAYC booklet:

"Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's rebid is at the game level."

So 1S-2C-3C is forcing, not that most people play it this way.

I play an F1 5cM system, where all rebids after 1M-2x are forcing except 1M-2x-2M. 2M is a minimum which wouldn't accept an invite to 3NT, and is frequently 5 cards. 2NT is a minimum balanced GF (we play a 10-13 NT and open 5 card majors in it), and 3NT is 18-19 balanced.

Peter

[hrothgar]

EricK, on Nov 19 2005, 08:07 PM, said:

But 3♣ does not show a minimum for the simple reason that the 2♣ bid promises a rebid. With a minimum hand you must rebid 2♠ (or introduce ♥ or ♦ where applicable) and then show support on the next round.

Similarly a 2NT rebid does not show a minimum.

Whether you like this treatment or not, it is very useful on this hand - you can simply raise to 3♣.

Eric

I'm sorry... I could have sworn that the original post specified that they were playing SAYC...

Let me quote from the ACBL's description of SAYC

In the section documenting "RESPONSES AND LATER BIDDING AFTER A 1H OR 1S OPENING"

Opener's rebids are natural and standard.

Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points):
Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level;
Raising responder's suit at the cheapest level (this can be done
with good three-card support if desired);
Rebidding a new suit (but not reversing);
Rebidding opener's suit at the lowest level

I will repeat my earlier comments regarding

1. A pathetic bidding system
2. People projecting their own bidding theories onto a defined system

[pbleighton]

Richard, let me repeat:

"Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's rebid is at the game level."

http://www.cs.rice.e...dge/yellow.html

This is in the "Subsequent Bidding By Responder" section, which is after the section you quoted.

I don't like it, I don't play it, but that IS SAYC.

Peter

[hrothgar]

pbleighton, on Nov 19 2005, 09:10 PM, said:

Richard, let me repeat:

"Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's rebid is at the game level."

http://www.cs.rice.e...dge/yellow.html

This is in the "Subsequent Bidding By Responder" section, which is after the section you quoted.

I don't like it, I don't play it, but that IS SAYC.

Peter

Hi Peter:

I should have been more clear:

I agree with you that SAYC defines the 3♣ raise as forcing.
However, I believe that it is unreasonable to do so...

[Robert]

Hello everyone

Playing SAYC. 1S-2C-4C=strong, game forcing with 4 card support.

Since hrothgar posted that 3C was 13-16, my jump bid must show 17+ and four card support without side shortness. Aren't we describing our hand within a Jack of its value? witp?

Assuming I am playing SAYC with a decent player, even playing SAYC I follow classic bidding style of 'bidding' around the clock with side shortness.

1S-2C-2red-2NT-4C shows shortness in the unbid suit and shows 4 card support 'if a jump bid.'

If partner rebids 3C or makes some other bid that prevents my jump support, the 4C raise still promises shortness in the unbid suit and 3+ card support.

I am hoping that the big Ox across from me will cuebid an Ace or make some other smart move. If he trots out old Black(SAYC doesn't play RKC, I trust) I answer Aces.

SAYC and Goren are not my favorite systems by a very long shot, however, I still try to bid decently using any system with a competent partner.

Regards,
Robert

[han]

This hand smells like 3NT, I'm going to make a forcing 3C bid.

[Fluffy]

awm, on Nov 19 2005, 03:52 PM, said:

Well, Elianna and I play more or less SAYC, and for us this is an easy 3♣ call (natural and GF). Move one card and I'd bid 2NT (natural and GF).

These sounds as french standard

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Nov 19 2005, 05:13 PM, said:

EricK, on Nov 19 2005, 08:07 PM, said:

But 3♣ does not show a minimum for the simple reason that the 2♣ bid promises a rebid. With a minimum hand you must rebid 2♠ (or introduce ♥ or ♦ where applicable) and then show support on the next round.

Similarly a 2NT rebid does not show a minimum.

Whether you like this treatment or not, it is very useful on this hand - you can simply raise to 3♣.

Eric

I'm sorry... I could have sworn that the original post specified that they were playing SAYC...

Let me quote from the ACBL's description of SAYC

In the section documenting "RESPONSES AND LATER BIDDING AFTER A 1H OR 1S OPENING"

Opener's rebids are natural and standard.

Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points):
Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level;
Raising responder's suit at the cheapest level (this can be done
with good three-card support if desired);
Rebidding a new suit (but not reversing);
Rebidding opener's suit at the lowest level

I will repeat my earlier comments regarding

1. A pathetic bidding system
2. People projecting their own bidding theories onto a defined system

If you bid 2M with the 12-14 hands and raise the minor with 15-16 points you are still bidding in line with that paragraph aren't you?

Since the document is deliberately short one has to "read in between the lines" to work out what it really means.

Do you really think they mean that in SAYC a 2NT rebid after 1♠ 2♣ shows 13-16 points? If you read the whole document, especially the bit about 2/1 promising a rebid, they can't mean this. They must mean that the maximum minimum hands bid 2NT and the minimum minimum hands go through 2M.

Eric

[Kalvan14]

I was expecting a more unanimous result.
I believe that the issues are: clubs are always a tricky suit; at MP, going beyond 3N may be a disaster.

I'm not a specialist of SAYC, and it is quite likely that my considerations are coming from the system I usually play (2/1 - one of the many ).

IMHO, the following should apply:

• 1M-2m-3m MUST be forcing (at least to 4m)
  
• 1M-2m promises another re-bid. I assume that 1M-2m-2N is limited with stoppers in OM/om: as such, I consider possible to pass it. 3m is forcing (as I said before) and any bid in OM/om is clearly forcing. This leaves the auction 1M-2m-2M which is a kind of default bid (since 1M-2m-3m is forcing, it must show extras. All minimum hands with fit in m must rebid 2M (or, rarely, 2N)
  
• The above effective means that a 2/1 in SAYC must be forcing until 2N or 3m (the following auctions might stop before game: 1M-2m-2N; 1M-2m-2M-2N or 3m; 1M-2m-2 (OM/om)-3m [Opener's rebid must not show a reverse].

Is anyone in agreement?

New question: how do you understand an auction 1♠-2♣-3♥?

The discussion is quite interesting. Sometimes i believe that SAYC is not a real system, but rather the Platonic idea of a system. On our fallen world, we always get a distorted reflection: the pure SAYC of the ideas realm is always polluted and demeaned

[pbleighton]

"Sometimes i believe that SAYC is not a real system, but rather the Platonic idea of a system."

It is a real system, but:
a) Many bids are undefined,
Most people who say they play it don't

Playing "SAYC" with a pickup pd, 3C is a "correct" (forcing) but very dangerous, as the majority of people who play "SAYC" play it as non-forcing.

Peter

[hrothgar]

EricK, on Nov 20 2005, 11:21 AM, said:

Do you really think they mean that in SAYC a 2NT rebid after 1♠ 2♣ shows 13-16 points? If you read the whole document, especially the bit about 2/1 promising a rebid, they can't mean this. They must mean that the maximum minimum hands bid 2NT and the minimum minimum hands go through 2M.

Whatever floats your boat...

I have no interest in arguing about how SAYC should be played.
Its a piss-poor system with no redeeming qualities.

Its not "standard": No one has a clue what is/is not part of the system
Its not effective
Its not even easy to play/remember

[gotoshi]

What should beginners learn?